Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of dom ene 29 22:13:43 -0300 2012:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of sáb ene 28 01:35:33 -0300 2012:
> >> This is the same thing I was complaining about in the bug #6123 thread,
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9698.
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of sáb ene 28 01:35:33 -0300 2012:
>> This is the same thing I was complaining about in the bug #6123 thread,
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9698.1327266...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> Hm. Okay, I hadn't read that.
> In my FOR KEY SHAR
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of sáb ene 28 01:35:33 -0300 2012:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I expected the FETCH to return one row, with the latest data, i.e.
> > (1, 3), but instead it's returning empty.
>
> This is the same thing I was complaining about in the bug #6123 thread,
> http://a
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I expected the FETCH to return one row, with the latest data, i.e.
> (1, 3), but instead it's returning empty.
This is the same thing I was complaining about in the bug #6123 thread,
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9698.1327266...@sss.pgh.pa.us
It looks a bit t
This is my test case (all in one session):
CREATE TABLE foo (
key int PRIMARY KEY,
value int
);
INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1, 1);
BEGIN;
DECLARE foo CURSOR FOR SELECT * FROM foo FOR UPDATE;
UPDATE foo SET value = 2 WHERE key = 1;
UPDATE foo SET value = 3 WHERE key = 1
